leagueoflegendsfandomcom-20200222-history
League of Legends Wiki:Request for Rollback/Dyomaeth
:The following discussion is closed. '''Please do not modify it.' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' ---- I am nominating this user for rollback rights for a couple reasons. First off, I have been personally watching his contributions and I have noticed that he shows interest in helping the wiki and it's content. I also know that he has found vandalism as well. I am nominating this user for his effort and interest in the wiki. 22:13, 6/24/2011 Support # As nominator. 22:13, 6/24/2011 # I fully support this. Rapacious 14:05, June 25, 2011 (UTC) Neutral # Oppose # I see no point in him getting RLB, 404 of his 440 contributions are comments, 15 of them are on his user page, this leaves a grand total of 21 edits on pages. Out of those 21 edits I see no reversing of vandalism. 14:37, June 25, 2011 (UTC) # Agree with Neon. # 17:47, June 25, 2011 (UTC) # Comments * I do plan on helping the wiki improve and this new button will make it even better! Dyomaeth 01:36, June 25, 2011 (UTC) * @Neon - Well I know for a fact that he found vandalism one time and he left me a message to tell me about it. I don't think rollback is that big of a deal anyway. It's just another tool for him to use if he finds vandalism. 17:13, 6/25/2011 * I fixed myself one of the vandalisms he reported, and that was because he didn't yet know how to do it right. He didn't edit much, because he was afraid he'd break the pages more than the vandal did. Considering the first fact, and the fact that there are alot of very active users here that do most of the edits before others get the chance, and also have faster methods to fix damage, and also the fact that the nomination he has has absolutely nothing to do with actually improving already existing information, but fixing vandalism, why are you considering the fact that he made just 21 edits on pages?I'm not trying to question your credibility, but I simply can't put aside the following question: Are you biased because Tech nominated him?Rapacious 18:17, June 25, 2011 (UTC) Category:Inactive rights requests ** This is not about being biased or not, the RB positions aren't in such a need that we promote the first one we see. An RB has to have more editions on the wiki, because he demonstrate he can and will revert vandalism, spam or any other type of attack to the wiki. And Dyomaeth, has mainly been posting in the comments section, which are a feature we are considering to remove, specially for the huge amount of spam carried there. ** Also Mr. Rapacious, you are in the same position as he is, I'm starting to feel nervous about this nomination, mainly because there are 2 users that have the same controversy. Which makes me doubt even from the nominator, and when I have these thoughts in my mind... well they better not be true. ***Excuse me, bias? Are you serious Rapacious? This is a nomination, so I'm going to act civilized and not satisfy that question any further. Rollback isn't candy, even though, as of late, it may seem like it might as well be. Just because someone has reported a whole two cases of vandalism does not qualify him for the position. Disregarding this whole thing, you act as though he can't revert vandalism via the less glorified undo button. I'm not even going to touch Tech's "he found vandalism one time." 18:51, June 25, 2011 (UTC) *Since I am under controversy, Kaz, should i not be notified of the type of controversy I am under? Rapacious 18:48, June 25, 2011 (UTC) ** Of course, as you can read before in the comment made by me, you are in the same situation a lot of comments/very few (Main) edits. Which is true your opinion is very valid. The thing here is that you barely edit articles, why do you take such importance in the administration matters? *First of all, requests for rollback are not a vote. Kindly stop turning them into one. People are, of course, free to express opinions, but not in the vote format please. Second of all, this seems to be elevating into a "should we give out rollback to people who don't need it", to which I say no. There is no need here, so there is no point in assigning him this right. 19:01, June 25, 2011 (UTC) **SInce they are not a vote, then what do we do when one admin+ wants to promote and another doesn't? Do the opinions of those who aren't admin+ matter in that case? 19:02, June 25, 2011 (UTC) ***Definitely, but we should be focussing on opinions, and which one is more viable than the other when it comes to a controversial thing like this, not counting the numbers on both sides of the draw line. 19:05, June 25, 2011 (UTC) *****Finally, an answer I can get behind, content of opinions, not numbers. 19:08, June 25, 2011 (UTC) ** We always have been handling this as a vote, or consensual agreement (Crat only). But yeah you are right, we are not giving this user any tools, first because he don't need them, second because we do no lack of RBs and third bacause you won't find any admin, nor crat that would give him the tools. So I believe this is a closed request. *Y'know, Aj, we should have some sort of manual of some sort where things like this can be written down for future references and the such. ;) 19:10, June 25, 2011 (UTC) *The talk about Rollback rights on this wiki is getting ridiculous. For the past few months you have been doing everything to try to down play the Rollback position. Form comments like "it's just an extra button, no big deal, why not give it to him." to to removing the vote for the position to even removing the special colour that rollback editors get. Then this conversation pops up and i just don't get it any more. Either it's a significant position or it's not. Frankly at this point i would just give it everyone with a registered account and 100 edits automatically. If Rollback is so unimportant give it to him. If it is important or has some significance then set down the ground rules clearly for all to see. I hope that we don't loose Dyomaeth as an editor over this because frankly the tone you guys took in this conversation was a little condescending. 20:36, June 25, 2011 (UTC) *:It isn't a big deal, but at the same time, it isn't candy. What's the point of giving it out to people who don't need it? When I say that it isn't a big deal, I mean that there is no point in a user going through an overly bureaucratic vote to get it, but like all rights, there's no point in someone having them if they have no use for them. These aren't trophies. 20:40, June 25, 2011 (UTC) **He doesn't even have 100 edits Exiton, so he wouldn't get it automatically in your system anyway. Also, there's a huge difference between downplaying it and giving it to everyone. Another thing, I can't remember me ever saying "why not just give it to him," please, give me a source. 20:50, June 25, 2011 (UTC) *Wow I didn't think we were going to have such a large discussion on this. Obviously the answer has been decided and we simply don't have to argue over it. I simply thought that this user could use the tool. Also Uber, why do you vote for people with no reason? I guess you don't need to have reasoning but it gives me headaches trying to figure out why :P and Kaz what do you mean by "Which makes me doubt even from the nominator, and when I have these thoughts in my mind... well they better not be true.", what have I done wrong here? Is it my fault that I try to acknowledge people? We don't need another issue over this, just simply close it as not done. 21:07, 6/25/2011